Bug 458186

MP3 support cannot go into Fedora, also iirc FFmpeg is not in Fedora. In case there is no support for these forbidden items, please remove them also from the description.

Also I guess this is wrong, because stripping has to be done by some debuginfo-generation script afaik, to make the information go into the debuginfo subpackage:
(
cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_libdir}/%{name}/modules/
for i in *.so; do
    strip $i || true
done
)

It FAILED on koji, I will correct it and update.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=767585

SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/gnusound.spec
SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/gnusound-0.7.5-2.fc9.src.rpm

Stripping and Description fixed.

Yes stripping like this was wrong. The issue was with permissions of *.so

I have changed description to this:
GNUsound is a multitrack sound editor for GNOME. It reads and writes
many audio formats through its modular system of file format drivers
and can also extract the audio from video formats. It can use either
OSS, ALSA or JACK for recording and playback and interfaces with the
GLADSPA plugin system to provide a wide range of high-quality audio
processing plugins including filters, compressors and delay effects.

It looks to me acceptable now.
May you suggest changes if any still required?

Thanks,

The patch probably needs to be send upstream and a comment about the status of the patch needs to be added to the spec:
Patch0:         gnusound-build.patch
Reference: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/PatchUpstreamStatus

Imho this should also apply to the .desktop file, therefore please send it to upstream, too.

The %configure script already sets --prefix (you can test it with rpm --eval %configure), therefore I cannot see a reason, why this needs to be added:

%configure --prefix=%{_usr}

Btw. if you needed to add it, %{_prefix} would be probably a better choice.

Is it intentional, that these files are not marked with %doc?
%dir %{_docdir}/%{name}/html
%{_docdir}/%{name}/html/*.html

You do not yet need to rebuild it, I will try to do a complete review later, but I need to refresh my knowledge about some guidelines, first.

Just commenting for this:

(In reply to comment #3)
> Is it intentional, that these files are not marked with %doc?
> %dir %{_docdir}/%{name}/html
> %{_docdir}/%{name}/html/*.html

Files/directories under %_docdir are automatically marked as %doc.
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch09s05.html#id2972655

From rpm 4.5.90 source, the current directories which are automatically
assumed as %doc are:

%__docdir_path %{_datadir}/doc:%{_datadir}/man:%{_datadir}/info:%{_datadir}/gtk-doc/html:%{?_docdir}:%{?_mandir}:%{?_infodir}:%{?_javadocdir}:/usr/doc:/usr/man:/usr/info:/usr/X11R6/man

I tried to communicate with upstream regarding BUILD patch which fixs DESTDIR this but no proper response.

I feel it should not be a blocker. Maintainer + moderator of dev mails seems to be on holidays.

This package has other issues also like -- few dependencies are in third party repo. As they cannot be here due to license issues with audio formats.

I will discuss this package with some more folks at DEV (IRC or ML) and check what is best way to move forward.

Anybody having comments is welcome.

Will update ASAP.
Thanks.

Maintainers upstream never responded.
Mailing List is also moderated and my messages never went through

Sad end. I will pick it up sometime in future if it looked to me worth considering.

If anyone in between is interested and wants to take away srpm, feel free to do so.

Thanks